POCSO | School Records Prevail Over Ossification Test For Age Determination Of Minor Victim: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Ossification test becomes necessary only in cases where documents mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act are not available", Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that school records conclusively determine the age of a minor victim and prevail over medical opinion based on ossification tests. The Court emphasized that conviction in sexual assault cases can be based solely on the trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix even without independent corroboration, and that failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade does not render court identification inadmissible.

A 14-year-old girl from the Scheduled Caste Kori community was gang-raped on July 30, 2014, around 7:30 PM while heading to relieve herself near Choute Baba's field in Village Shukulgawan, Police Station Tala, District Satna. The prosecutrix alleged that accused-appellants Ajay alias Shera alias Shamsher and Kalu alias Amit Kol abducted her to Vijay Raj Singh's field, covered her mouth, threatened to kill her, and raped her one after the other before fleeing. An FIR was registered at Police Station Tala under Sections 376(D) and 376(2)(i) IPC, Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Judge (Atrocities), Satna convicted both appellants and sentenced each to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.

The primary legal questions before the Court concerned age determination of the minor victim—whether school records should prevail over ossification test results, the admissibility and evidentiary value of court identification in the absence of a Test Identification Parade, sufficiency of sole testimony of the prosecutrix for conviction, and validity of the defence of alibi.

School Records Trump Medical Opinion on Age

The Court examined the evidence of Rajendra Prasad Napit (PW-3), Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Kotar, who produced the prosecutrix's Scholar Register showing she was admitted to Class 6 on 05.07.2013 with date of birth as 15.08.2000. He also produced her school admission application form and the annexed transfer certificate from the Headmaster, Government Ancient School, Shukulgada, both confirming the same date of birth. The mother of the victim (PW-6) testified that her daughter was 14 years old at the time of the incident and studying in Class 7th.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263, the High Court held that the scheme under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 establishes a hierarchy for age determination. The Court observed that "if, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause."

The Bench noted that matriculation certificate occupies the highest position, followed by date of birth entry in the first school attended, then birth certificate from corporation/municipal authority/panchayat, and only in the absence of all these documents, medical opinion based on ossification test becomes relevant.

Rejecting the appellants' reliance on the ossification test, the Court held: "The ossification test becomes necessary only in cases where documents mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are not available." Since school records conclusively established the victim's date of birth as 15.08.2000, making her 14 years old on the date of incident, the Court found no error in the trial court's conclusion that the victim was below 18 years.

The Court further relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 773 wherein the Supreme Court held that where certificates proving age are available, the ossification test is not the sole criterion and "the High Court should have relied firstly on the documents as stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) and only in the absence, the medical opinion should have been sought."

Consent Irrelevant When Victim is Minor

Having conclusively determined that the prosecutrix was below 18 years on the date of incident, the Court held that the question of consent did not arise at all. This principle flows directly from the statutory framework which treats sexual intercourse with a minor as rape regardless of consent.

Court Identification Valid Without TIP

Addressing the challenge regarding non-conduct of Test Identification Parade, the Court noted that the victim (PW-5) had clearly stated in her testimony that at the place of incident, the accused persons were calling each other by their names, through which she came to know their names. The First Information Report lodged at the instance of the victim clearly mentioned the names of both accused persons. During her testimony before the court, the victim identified both accused and stated that Ajay alias Shera belongs to the Kevat caste (OBC category) while Kalu alias Amit belongs to the Kol caste (ST category).

The Court emphasized that "identification made in court is an important piece of evidence" and held that "there is no rule that if a Test Identification Parade was not conducted during the investigation, then the identification made by the witness in court has no value."

Relying on the three-judge Bench decision in Malkhan Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 5 SCC 746, the Court reiterated that "the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court." The Bench observed that "identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade."

The Court further held: "Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration."

Citing Ms. S v. Sunil Kumar & Another (2015) 8 SCC 478, the Bench noted that "what is substantive evidence is the identification of an accused in court by a witness and that the prior identification in a test identification parade is used only to corroborate the identification in court. Holding of test identification parade is not the rule of law but rule of prudence."

The Court concluded: "Even in the absence of such test identification parade, the identification in court can in given circumstances be relied upon, if the witness is otherwise trustworthy and reliable."

Prosecutrix's Testimony Sufficient for Conviction

The Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-5) to be clear, consistent and inspiring confidence. She had deposed that on the date of incident at 7:30 PM, while heading to the fields to relieve herself, accused Ajay (Shera) and Kalu (Amit Kol) approached her near Natipal's field. When Shera told her to come for something wrong, she refused and threatened to tell her mother. They covered her mouth, dragged her to Chhutthu Babba Ji's field, threatened to kill her if she screamed, and raped her one after the other—Shera first while Kalu held her, then Kalu while Shera held her. Thereafter they fled.

The Court noted that the victim's testimony was corroborated by multiple witnesses. Her mother Lilavati (PW-6) testified that the victim narrated the entire incident to her immediately after returning home. The victim's aunt Asha Kori (PW-4), sister Sarita Bunkar (PW-8), and another aunt Mamta (PW-9) all testified that the prosecutrix had narrated the incident to them.

Medical evidence further supported the prosecution case. Dr. Alka Mahule (PW-12), Medical Officer at District Hospital, Satna, examined the prosecutrix on 31.07.2014 and found a ruptured hymen with old tear. The FSL report (Ex. P-18) confirmed that human semen was found on the victim's slide, accused Ajay's underwear, and accused Amit's underwear.

The Court held that "it is well settled that conviction can be based solely on the trustworthy statement of the prosecutrix, even without independent corroboration. Minor contradictions pointed out by the defence do not affect the core of the prosecution case."

Addressing minor contradictions, the Bench observed that the investigating officer Umesh Tiwari (PW-11) had recorded that the prosecutrix did not state the names of accused persons in her initial statement and made no mention of having met anyone near Netrapal's Bari or that the accused were calling each other's names during the incident. However, the Court found these minor contradictions natural and insufficient to discredit the core testimony, particularly when the victim had consistently named the accused in the FIR and identified them in court.

Defence of Alibi Not Established

The defence examined two witnesses—Kailash Kol (DW-1), father of accused Amit Kol, who claimed his son had gone for labour work to Jamuna Tola all day and returned home with him in the evening, and Kamlesh (DW-2), brother of accused Ajay, who claimed his brother had gone to Jamuna Tola for labour work to plant crops on the date of incident.

The Court rejected the defence of alibi, holding that "under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, the distance must be so great that it is impossible for the accused to reach the scene of the incident but such a situation does not exist in this case."

The Bench observed that the victim had clearly stated that around 7:00-7:30 PM on the date of incident, when she went towards the field, the accused forcibly raped her during that time. This fact was corroborated by statements of the victim's mother (PW-6), Asha Kori (PW-4), Sarita Kori (PW-8), and Mamta Kori (PW-9).

The Court noted: "There is no fact in the cross-examination of the victim (PW-5) and the victim's mother (PW-6) on the basis of which it can be concluded that they had any enmity with the accused persons due to which they would be interested in falsely implicating the accused."

No Illegality in Trial Court Judgment

After careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial court. The Bench held that "the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt."

Summarizing its findings, the Court observed: "The age of the prosecutrix was duly proved through reliable school records and the testimony of her mother, establishing that she was a minor at the time of the incident. The testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, consistent, and inspires confidence. The medical and FSL evidence further corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. The defence of false implication and alibi has not been proved by cogent evidence. No material contradiction or motive for false implication has been established."

The Court emphasized that "in criminal jurisprudence, when the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and supported by surrounding circumstances, the conviction can safely be sustained."

Date of Decision: 17.03.2026